More Generality in Efficient Multiple Kernel Learning


 Lora Freeman
 2 years ago
 Views:
Transcription
1 Manik Varma Microsoft Research India, Second Main Road, Sadashiv Nagar, Bangalore , India Bodla Rakesh Babu CVIT, International Institute of Information Technology Hyderabad, Gachibowli, Hyderabad , India Abstract Recent advances in Multiple Kernel Learning (MKL) have positioned it as an attractive tool for tackling many supervised learning tasks. The development of efficient gradient descent based optimization schemes has made it possible to tackle large scale problems. Simultaneously, MKL based algorithms have achieved very good results on challenging real world applications. Yet, despite their successes, MKL approaches are limited in that they focus on learning a linear combination of given base kernels. In this paper, we observe that existing MKL formulations can be extended to learn general kernel combinations subject to general regularization. This can be achieved while retaining all the efficiency of existing large scale optimization algorithms. To highlight the advantages of generalized kernel learning, we tackle feature selection problems on benchmark vision and UCI databases. It is demonstrated that the proposed formulation can lead to better results not only as compared to traditional MKL but also as compared to stateoftheart wrapper and filter methods for feature selection. 1. Introduction Support Vector Machines are basic tools in machine learning that are used for tasks such as classification, regression, etc. They find application in diverse areas ranging from vision to bioinformatics to naturallanguage processing. The success of SVMs in these fields is often dependent on the choice of a good kernel and features ones that are typically handcrafted and Appearing in Proceedings of the 26 th International Conference on Machine Learning, Montreal, Canada, Copyright 2009 by the author(s)/owner(s). fixed in advance. However, handtuning kernel parameters can be difficult as can selecting and combining appropriate sets of features. Multiple Kernel Learning (MKL) seeks to address this issue by learning the kernel from training data. In particular, it focuses on how the kernel can be learnt as a linear combination of given base kernels. Many MKL formulations have been proposed in the literature. In (Sonnenburg et al., 2006), it was shown that the MKL Block l 1 formulation of (Bach et al., 2004) could be expressed as a Semiinfinite Linear Program. Column generation methods and existing SVM solvers could then be used for efficient optimization and to tackle large scale problems involving as many as a million data points. Gradient descent can be more efficient than solving a series of linear programs and (Rakotomamonjy et al., 2008) demonstrated that training time could be further reduced by nearly an order of magnitude on some standard UCI datasets when the number of kernels was large. Simultaneously, MKL based algorithms have achieved very good results on bioinformatics and computer vision applications. These methods established the viability of MKL as a tool for tackling challenging real world problems. Nevertheless, MKL approaches are limited in that they focus on learning linear combinations of base kernels corresponding to the concatenation of individual kernel feature spaces. Far richer representations can be achieved by combining kernels in other fashions. For example, taking products of kernels corresponds to taking a tensor product of their feature spaces. This leads to a much higher dimensional feature representation as compared to feature concatenation. Furthermore, by focusing mainly on feature concatenation, MKL approaches do not consider the fundamental question of what are appropriate feature representations for a given task. Some attempts have been made at addressing this issue. Most recently, (Bach, 2008) develop an innovative way of learning linear combinations of an exponential number of kernels of a certain type. The method can
2 therefore be leveraged in situations where the desired kernel combination can be approximated as a linear combination of appropriately chosen base kernels. In this paper, we observe that it is fairly straight forward to extend traditional MKL formulations to handle generic kernel combinations. Furthermore, the gradient descent optimization developed and used in (Bach, 2008; Chapelle et al., 2002; Rakotomamonjy et al., 2008; Varma & Ray, 2007) can still be applied out of the box. It is therefore possible to learn rich feature representations without having to sacrifice any of the advantages of a well developed, large scale optimization toolkit. In addition to the kernel function, it is also possible to generalize the regularization on the kernel parameters. This can be used to incorporate prior knowledge about the kernel parameters if available. However, the price that one has to pay for such generality, is that the new MKL formulation is no longer convex. Nevertheless, we feel that the ability to explore appropriate feature representation is probably more important than being able to converge to the global optimum (of an inappropriate representation). This is borne out by our experimental results. We highlight the advantages of generalized kernel learning by tackling feature selection problems on benchmark computer vision tasks, such as gender identification, as well as on some UCI datasets. We show that for a fixed number of selected features, standard MKL can lag behind our formulation by as much as 10% in some cases. Stated in another way, our formulation is capable of reaching the same classification accuracy as MKL with only a sixth of the features. We also present comparative results with AdaBoost, OWLQN (Andrew & Gao, 2007), LPSVM (Fung & Mangasarian, 2002), Sparse SVM (Chan et al., 2007) and BAHSIC (Song et al., 2007). The rest of the paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we review the development of MKL from initial work to current stateoftheart. We then present our formulation in Section 3. The formulation is quite general and can be used for kernel combination, kernel parameter tuning, nonlinear feature selection and dimensionality reduction. Since our empirical focus is on feature selection we review other feature selection methods in Section 4 and present comparative results to them in Section 5. We conclude in Section Related Work Some of the earliest work on MKL was developed in (Crammer et al., 2002; Cristianini et al., 2001). Their focus was on optimizing loss functions such as kernel target alignment rather than the specific classification or regression problem at hand. This was addressed in the influential work of (Lanckriet et al., 2004) which showed how MKL could be formulated appropriately for a given task and optimized as an SDP or QCQP (for nonnegative kernel weights). Nevertheless, QCQPs do not scale well to large problems and one of the first practical MKL algorithms was presented in (Bach et al., 2004). The block l 1 formulation, in conjunction with MY regularization, was developed so that efficient gradient descent could be performed using the SMO algorithm while still generating a sparse solution. As already mentioned in the introduction, (Sonnenburg et al., 2006) retained the block l 1 regularization but reformulated the problem as a SILP. This made it applicable to large scale problems and the authors were impressively able to train their algorithm on a million splice data set. Further efficiency was obtained in (Rakotomamonjy et al., 2008; Varma & Ray, 2007) via gradient descent optimization and (Bach, 2008) opened up the possibility of training on an exponentially large number of kernels. Other interesting approaches have been proposed in (Argyriou et al., 2005; Ong et al., 2005; Zien & Ong, 2007) and include Hyperkernels and multiclass MKL. Note that these methods essentially learn linear combinations of base kernels subject to l 1, or sometimes l 2 (Cristianini et al., 2001; Kloft et al., 2008), regularization of the kernel parameters. Most formulations are convex or can be made so by a change of variables. 3. Generalized MKL Our objective is to learn a function of the form f(x) = w t φ d (x) + b with the kernel k d (x i,x j ) = φ t d (x i)φ d (x j ) representing the dot product in feature space φ parameterized by d. The function can be used directly for regression or the sign of the function can be used for classification. The goal in SVM learning is to learn the globally optimal values of w and b from training data {(x i,y i )}. In addition, MKL also estimates the kernel parameters d. We extend the MKL formulation of (Varma & Ray, 2007) to 1 min w,b,d 2 wt w + l(y i,f(x i )) + r(d) (1) i subject to d 0 (2) where both the regularizer r and the kernel can be any general differentiable functions of d with continuous derivative and l could be one of various loss functions such as l = C max(0,1 y i f(x i )) for classification or l = C max(0, y i f(x i ) ǫ) for regression.
3 Three things are worth noting about the primal. First, we choose to use a nonconvex formulation, as opposed to the convex k wt k w k/d k (Rakotomamonjy et al., 2008), since for general kernel combinations, w t k w k need not tend to zero when d k tends to zero. Second, we place r(d) in the objective and incorporate a scale parameter within it rather than having it as an equality constraint (typically k d k = 1 or k d2 k = 1). Third, the constraint d 0 can often be relaxed to a more general one which simply requires the learnt kernel to be positive definite. Conversely, the constraints can also be strengthened if prior knowledge is available. In either case, if d r exists then the gradient descent based optimization is still applicable. However, the projection back into the feasible set can get more expensive. In order to leverage existing large scale optimizers, we follow the standard procedure (Chapelle et al., 2002) of reformulating the primal as a nested two step optimization. In the outer loop, the kernel is learnt by optimizing over d while, in the inner loop, the kernel is held fixed and the SVM parameters are learnt. This can be achieved by rewriting the primal as follows Min d where T(d) subject to d 0 (3) T(d) = Min w,b 1 2 wt w + i l(y i,f(x i )) + r(d) We now need to prove that d T exists, and calculate it efficiently, if we are to utilize gradient descent in the outer loop. This can be achieved by moving to the dual formulation of T given by (for classification and regression respectively) and W C (d) = max 1 t α 1 α 2 αt YK d Yα + r(d) (4) subject to 1 t Yα = 0, 0 α C (5) W R (d) = max α 1 t Yα 1 2 αt K d α +r(d) ǫ1 t α (6) subject to 1 t α = 0, 0 α C (7) where K d is the kernel matrix for a given d and Y is a diagonal matrix with the labels on the diagonal. Note that we can write T = r+p and W = r+d with strong duality holding between P and D. Therefore, T(d) = W(d) for any given value of d, and it is sufficient for us to show that W is differentiable and calculate d W. Proof of the differentiability of W C and W R comes from Danskin s Theorem (Danskin, 1967). Since the feasible set is compact, the gradient can be shown to exist if k, r, d k and d r are smoothly varying functions of d and if α, the value of α that optimizes W, is unique. Furthermore, a straight forward extension of Lemma 2 in (Chapelle et al., 2002) can be used to show that W C and W R (as well as others obtained from loss functions for novelty detection, ranking, etc.) have derivatives given by T = W = r 1 H d k d k d 2α t α (8) k d k where H = YKY for classification and H = K for regression. Thus, in order to take a gradient step, all we need to do is obtain α. Note that since W C or W R are equivalent to their corresponding single kernel SVM duals with kernel matrix K d, α can be obtained by any SVM optimization package. The final algorithm is given in Algorithm 1 and we refer to it as Generalized MKL (GMKL). The step size s n is chosen based on the Armijo rule to guarantee convergence and the projection step, for the constraints d 0, is as simple as d max(0, d). Note that the algorithm is virtually unchanged from (Varma & Ray, 2007) apart from the more general form of the kernel k and regularizer r. If a faster rate of convergence was required, our assumptions could be suitably modified so as to take second order steps rather than perform gradient descent. Only very mild restrictions have been placed on the form of the learnt kernel k and regularizer r. As regards k, the only constraints that have been imposed are that K be strictly positive definite for all valid d and that d k exists and be continuous. Many kernels can be constructed that satisfy these properties. One can, of course, learn the standard sum of base kernels. More generally, products of base kernels, and other combinations which yield positive definite kernels, can also be learnt now. In addition, one can also tune kernel parameters in general kernels such as k d (x i,x j ) = (d 0 + m d mx t i A mx j ) n or Algorithm 1 Generalized MKL. 1: n 0 2: Initialize d 0 randomly. 3: repeat 4: K k(d n ) 5: Use an SVM solver of choice to solve the single kernel problem with ( kernel K and obtain ) α. 6: d n+1 k d n k sn r d k 1 H 2α t d k α 7: Project d n+1 onto the feasible set if any constraints are violated. 8: n n + 1 9: until converged
4 k d (x i,x j ) = e m dmxt i Amxj. Combined with a sparsity promoting regularizer on d, this can be used for nonlinear dimensionality reduction and feature selection for appropriate choices of A. Note, however, that such kernels do not lead to convex formulations. As regards r, we only require that its derivative should exist and be continuous. Since d can be restricted to the nonnegative orthant, various forms of pnorm regularisers with p 1 fall in this category. In particular, l 1 regularization with r(d) = σ t d or variations of (Chan et al., 2007) could be used for learning sparse solutions. Alternatively, l 2 regularization of the form r(d) = (d µ) t Σ 1 (d µ) can be used when only a small number of relevant kernels are present or if prior knowledge in the form of µ and Σ is available (for instance, from transfer learning). Finally, for regression, one could incorporate the term log K d into r so as to obtain a MAP estimate of a probabilistic formulation. The naïve substitution α = K 1 y would then render our formulation near identical to a marginal likelihood approach in Gaussian Processes. 4. Feature Selection Methods We compare our formulation to traditional MKL as well as the following feature selection methods Boosting : The LPBoost formulation of (Bi et al., 2004) is similar to that of standard MKL and boosting generalizes standard MKL s decision function. Boosting can therefore be used to learn linear combinations of base kernels. Individual weak classifier SVMs are prelearnt from each of the given base kernels and combined using AdaBoost. This can be attractive when there are a large number of kernels or when kernels are made available incrementally. While the computational costs are low, the empirical results were found to be poor as the learnt kernel weights could not influence the prelearnt weak classifiers. Of course, in traditional boosting, the weak classifiers and the weights are learnt together and we present comparative results to (Baluja & Rowley, 2007) which represents a stateoftheart boosting method for gender identification. OWLQN (Andrew & Gao, 2007) : This is a large scale implementation of l 1 logistic regression. The method learns a function of the form f(x) = w t x by minimizing (1/C) w 1 + i l(y i,f(x i )) where l is the log loss. Despite being linear, the method can sometimes outperform boosting. Nevertheless, the overall performance is poor as compared to the other linear methods since OWLQN does not have an explicit bias term. One could simulate a bias by adding a constant feature but the corresponding weight could be set to zero due to the l 1 regularization. When this doesn t happen, OWLQN s performance is comparable to LP SVM and SparseSVM. LPSVM (Fung & Mangasarian, 2002) : This is the standard SVM formulation but with the l 2 regularization on w replaced by l 1 regularization. We consider the linear formulation which learns a function of the form f(x) = w t x + b by minimizing w 1 +C i l(y i,f(x i )) where l is the hinge loss. Seeing that the hinge loss is very similar to the log loss, the formulation appears to be very similar to OWLQN. However, due to the explicit bias term b which is not included in the l 1 regularization, LPSVM can sometimes perform much better than OWLQN. Somewhat surprisingly, the performance of the linear LPSVM could even be better than that of nonlinear MKL (though not GMKL). SparseSVM (Chan et al., 2007) : This method does not use explicit l 1 regularization to enforce sparsity. Instead, it places a direct cardinality constraint on the hyperplane normal. It learns a function of the form f(x) = w t x + b by minimizing w 2 + C i l(y i,f(x i )) subject to w 0 r, where l is the hinge loss. We take the convex QCQP relaxation (QCQPSSVM) proposed by the authors. Empirically, we found the performance of SparseSVM to be very similar to that of LPSVM though, being a QCQP, it took much longer to optimize. BAHSIC (Song et al., 2007) : This is a leading filter method which runs a backward selection algorithm discarding features based on their label dependence as measured by the HilbertSchmidt independence criterion. We use an RBF kernel for the data (the same as used by boosting, MKL and GMKL) and a linear kernel for the labels. BAHSIC outputs a ranked list of features from which a subset of the desired size can be selected. An SVM with an RBF kernel is then trained using the selected features. In our experiments, we found backward selection to be computationally very expensive without offering any advantages in terms of classification accuracy. Given identical kernels, BAH SIC performed substantially worse than GMKL, 5. Experiments In this section we evaluate generalized kernel learning on various feature selection problems. We investigate gender identification from frontal facial images using as few pixels as possible. It is demonstrated that, on the benchmark database of (Moghaddam & Yang, 2002), GMKL can outperform MKL by as much as 10% for a given number of features. Similarly, on the
5 Table 1: Gender identification results. The final row summarizes the average number of features selected (in brackets) by each wrapper method and the resultant classification accuracy. See text for details. N d AdaBoost B&R 2007 OWLQN LPSVM SSVM BAHSIC MKL GMKL ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± (12.6) 91 (221.3) 91 (58.3) 90.8 (252) 91.6 (146.3) 95.5 (69.6) UCI datasets, there can be as much as a 6% to 10% difference in performance between GMKL and MKL. We also demonstrate that GMKL performs better than the other methods considered. To generate feature selection results, we can vary the hyperparameter C in the wrapper methods to select a desired number of features. However, this strategy does not yield good classification results even though globally optimal solutions are obtained. Low values of C encouraged greater sparsity but also permitted more classification errors. We obtained much better results by the theoretically suboptimal strategy of fixing C to a large value (chosen via crossvalidation so as to minimize classification error), learning the classifier, taking the top ranked components of w (or d) and relearning the classifier using only the selected features. This technique was used to generate the results in Tables 1 and 2. For each dataset, the very last row summarizes the number of features selected (N s ) by each wrapper method and the resultant classification accuracy. When the number of desired features (N d ) is less than N s, the classification accuracy is determined using the N d top ranked features. Otherwise, when N d > N s, the table entry is left blank as the classification accuracy either plateaus or decreases as suboptimal features are added. In such a situation, it is better to choose only N s features and maintain accuracy Gender Identification We tackle the binary gender identification problem on the benchmark database of (Moghaddam & Yang, 2002). The database has images of 1044 male and 711 female faces giving a total of 1755 images in all. We follow the standard experimental setup and use 1053 images for training and 702 for testing. Results are averaged over 3 random splits of the data. Each image in the database has been preprocessed by (Moghaddam & Yang, 2002) to be aligned and has been scaled down to have dimensions Thus, each image has 252 pixels and we associate an RBF kernel with each pixel based on its grey scale intensity directly. For Generalized MKL, the 252 base kernels are combined by taking their product to get k d (x i,x j ) = 252 m=1 where x e dm(xim xjm)2 im and x jm represent the intensity of the m th pixel in image i and j respectively. For standard MKL, the same 252 base kernels are combined using the sum representation to get k d (x i,x j ) = 252 m=1 d me γm(xim xjm)2. Both methods are subject to l 1 regularization on d so that only a few kernels are selected. AdaBoost can also be used to combine the 252 weak classifiers derived from the individual base kernels. The method of (Baluja & Rowley, 2007) can be considered as a stateoftheart boosting variant for this problem and operates on pairs of pixels. We use RBF kernels for BAHSIC as well while the other methods are linear. Table 1 lists the feature selection results. AdaBoost tended to perform the worst and selected only 12.6 features on average. The poor performance was due to the fact that each of the 252 SVMs was learnt independently. The weak classifier coefficients (i.e. kernel weights) did not influence the individual SVM parameters. By contrast, there is a very tight coupling between the two in MKL and GMKL and this ensures better performance. Of course, other forms of boosting do not have this limitation and the stateoftheart boosting method of (Baluja & Rowley, 2007) performs better but is still significantly inferior to GMKL. The performance of the linear feature selection methods is quite variable. Logistic regression performs poorly as the implicit bias weight got set to zero due to the l 1 regularization. On the other hand, LP SVM and SparseSVM perform even better than standard MKL (though not better than GMKL). BAHSIC, which is a nonlinear filter method, follows the same
6 Table 2: UCI results with datasets having N training points and M features. See text for details. Ionosphere: N = 246, M = 34, Uniform MKL = 89.9 ± 2.5, Uniform GMKL = 94.6 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± (9.8) 89.2 (25.2) 92.6 (34.0) 92.9 (34.0) 88.1 (29.3) 94.4 (16.9) Parkinsons: N = 136, M = 22, Uniform MKL = 87.3 ± 3.9, Uniform GMKL = 91.0 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± (5.2) 83.6 (11.1) 87.2 (22.0) 87.2 (22.0) 88.3 (14.6) 92.7 (9.0) Musk: N = 333, M = 166, Uniform MKL = 90.2 ± 3.2, Uniform GMKL = 93.8 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± (31.1) 83.5 (86.7) 83.4 (166.0) 83.3 (166.0) 88.2 (73.2) 93.6 (57.9) Sonar: N = 145, M = 60, Uniform MKL = 82.9 ± 3.4, Uniform GMKL = 84.6 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± (18.7) 74.7 (39.3) 73.6 (60.0) 73.5 (60.0) 81.4 (38.6) 82.3 (20.4) Wpbc: N = 135, M = 34, Uniform MKL = 72.1 ± 5.4, Uniform GMKL = 77.0 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± (5.1) 78.3 (20.8) 79.0 (34.0) 78.9 (34.0) 69.3 (24.8) 80.0 (16.8)
7 trend and its performance is significantly worse than GMKL with identical kernels. This would suggest that wrapper methods based on the right feature representation should be preferable to filter methods which do not directly optimize for classification accuracy. The comparison between MKL and GMKL is even starker. GMKL achieves a classification accuracy of 93.2% using as few as 20 features and 95.1% using only 30 features. In comparison, standard MKL achieves just 83.8% and 86.3% respectively. This reinforces the observation that choosing the right kernel representation is much more important than converging to the globally optimal solution. Finally, the MKL and GMKL results for fixed uniform weights chosen via crossvalidation are 92.6 ± 0.9 and 94.3 ± 0.1 respectively. Note that these results are obtained using all 252 features. GMKL can obtain a similar classification accuracy using as few as 25 features. In summary, there can be a difference of almost 10% between standard MKL and GMKL for a fixed small number of features. GMKL also does significantly better than BAHSIC and achieves nearly a 10x compression factor as compared to taking uniform weights UCI Datasets We also present comparative results on UCI datasets. We follow the standard experimental methodology (Rakotomamonjy et al., 2008) where 70% of the points are used for training and the remaining 30% for testing. Results are reported over 20 random splits of the data. All datasets are preprocessed to have zero mean and unit variance. An RBF kernel is assigned to each of the M features in a given dataset. The M RBF kernels are then combined linearly for standard MKL and by taking their product for GMKL. The learnt kernels are of the form k d (x i,x j ) = M m=1 d me γm(xim xjm)2 and k d (x i,x j ) = M m=1 e dm(xim xjm)2 respectively. Table 2 lists the feature selection results. The analysis Table 3: Comparison with the results in (Rakotomamonjy et al., 2008). GMKL achieves slightly better results but takes far fewer kernels as input. Database SimpleMKL GMKL Sonar 80.6 ± 5.1 (793) 82.3 ± 4.8 (60) Wpbc 76.7 ± 1.2 (442) 79.0 ± 3.5 (34) Ionosphere 91.5 ± 2.5 (442) 93.0 ± 2.1 (34) Liver 65.9 ± 2.3 (091) 72.7 ± 4.0 (06) Pima 76.5 ± 2.6 (117) 77.2 ± 2.1 (08) is similar to that of gender identification except that OWLQN performs better as the implicit bias is not always being set to zero. For a fixed number of features, GMKL has the best classification results even as compared to MKL or BAHSIC (though the variance can be high for all the methods). Furthermore, a kernel with fixed uniform weights yields ballpark classification accuracies though GMKL can achieve the same results using far fewer features Comparison to SimpleMKL and HMKL The classification performance of standard MKL can be improved by adding extra base kernels which are either more informative or help better approximate a desired kernel function. However, this can lead to a more complex and costlier learning task. We therefore leave aside feature selection for the moment and compare our results to those reported in (Rakotomamonjy et al., 2008). Table 3 lists classification performance on the 5 datasets of (Rakotomamonjy et al., 2008). The number of kernels input to each method are reported in brackets. As can be seen, GMKL can achieve slightly better performance than SimpleMKL while training on far fewer kernels. Of course, one can reduce the number of kernels input to SimpleMKL but this will result in reduced accuracy. In the limit that only a single kernel is used per feature, we will get back the results of Table 2 where GMKL does much better than standard MKL. The results for Liver were obtained using l 2 regularization. This lead to a 7% improvement in performance over SimpleMKL as a sparse representation is not suitable for this database (there are only 6 features). Pima also has very few features but l 1 and l 2 regularization give comparable results. Finally, we also compare results to Hierarchical MKL (Bach, 2008). We use a quadratic kernel of the form k d (x i,x j ) = (1 + m d mx im x jm ) 2 as compared to the more powerful k d (x i,x j ) = m (1 + x imx jm ) 4 of (Bach, 2008) which decomposes to a linear combination of 5 M kernels. Nevertheless, as shown in Table 4, we achieve slightly better results with less computational cost. Table 4: Comparison between HKL and GMKL. Database N M HKL GMKL Magic ± ± 1.2 Spambase ± ± 0.8 Mushroom ± ± 0.0
8 6. Conclusions In this paper, we have shown how traditional MKL formulations can be easily extended to learn general kernel combinations subject to general regularization on the kernel parameters. While our focus was on binary classification our approach can be applied to other loss functions and even other formulations such as Local MKL, multiclass and multilabel MKL. Generalized kernel learning can be achieved very efficiently based on gradient descent optimization and existing large scale SVM solvers. As such, it is now possible to learn much richer feature representations as compared to standard MKL without sacrificing any efficiency in terms of speed of optimization. Our GMKL formulation based on products of kernels was shown to give good results for various feature selection problems not only as compared to traditional MKL but also as compared to leading wrapper and filter feature selection methods. Of course, taking products of kernels might not always be the right approach to every problem. In such cases, our formulation can be used to learn other appropriate representation including sums of kernels. Finally, it should be noted that the classification accuracy of GMKL with learnt weights tends to be much the same as that obtained using uniform weights chosen through crossvalidation. The advantage in learning would therefore seem to lie in the fact that GMKL can learn to achieve the same classification accuracy but using far fewer features. Acknowledgements We are grateful to P. Anandan, Andrew Zisserman and our reviewers for providing helpful feedback. References Andrew, G., & Gao, J. (2007). Scalable training of L 1  regularized loglinear models. ICML (pp ). Argyriou, A., Micchelli, C. A., & Pontil, M. (2005). Learning convex combinations of continuously parameterized basic kernels. COLT (pp ). Bach, F. R. (2008). Exploring large feature spaces with hierarchical multiple kernel learning. NIPS (pp ). Bach, F. R., Lanckriet, G. R. G., & Jordan, M. I. (2004). Multiple kernel learning, conic duality, and the SMO algorithm. ICML (pp. 6 13). Baluja, S., & Rowley, H. (2007). Boosting sex identification performance. IJCV, 71, Bi, J., Zhang, T., & Bennet, K. P. (2004). Columngeneration boosting methods for mixture of kernels. Proc. SIGKDD (pp ). Chan, A. B., Vasconcelos, N., & Lanckriet, G. (2007). Direct convex relaxations of sparse SVM. ICML (pp ). Chapelle, O., Vapnik, V., Bousquet, O., & Mukherjee, S. (2002). Choosing multiple parameters for Support Vector Machines. Machine Learning, 46, Crammer, K., Keshet, J., & Singer, Y. (2002). Kernel design using boosting. NIPS (pp ). Cristianini, N., ShaweTaylor, J., Elisseeff, A., & Kandola, J. (2001). On kerneltarget alignment. NIPS (pp ). Danskin, J. M. (1967). The theorey of maxmin and its applications to weapons allocation problems. Fung, G., & Mangasarian, O. L. (2002). A feature selection newton method for support vector machine classification (Technical Report 0203). Univ. of Wisconsin. Kloft, M., Brefeld, U., Laskov, P., & Sonnenburg, S. (2008). Nonsparse Multiple Kernel Learning. NIPS Workshop on Kernel Learning. Lanckriet, G. R. G., Cristianini, N., Bartlett, P., El Ghaoui, L., & Jordan, M. I. (2004). Learning the kernel matrix with semidefinite programming. JMLR, 5, Moghaddam, B., & Yang, M. H. (2002). Learning gender with support faces. IEEE PAMI, 24, Ong, C. S., Smola, A. J., & Williamson, R. C. (2005). Learning the kernel with hyperkernels. JMLR, 6, Rakotomamonjy, A., Bach, F., Grandvalet, Y., & Canu, S. (2008). Simplemkl. JMLR, 9, Song, L., Smola, A., Gretton, A., Borgwardt, K., & Bedo, J. (2007). Supervised feature selection via dependence estimation. ICML (pp ). Sonnenburg, S., Raetsch, G., Schaefer, C., & Schoelkopf, B. (2006). Large scale multiple kernel learning. JMLR, 7, Varma, M., & Ray, D. (2007). Learning the discriminative powerinvariance tradeoff. ICCV. Zien, A., & Ong, C. S. (2007). Multiclass multiple kernel learning. ICML (pp ).
Simple and efficient online algorithms for real world applications
Simple and efficient online algorithms for real world applications Università degli Studi di Milano Milano, Italy Talk @ Centro de Visión por Computador Something about me PhD in Robotics at LIRALab,
More informationDUOL: A Double Updating Approach for Online Learning
: A Double Updating Approach for Online Learning Peilin Zhao School of Comp. Eng. Nanyang Tech. University Singapore 69798 zhao6@ntu.edu.sg Steven C.H. Hoi School of Comp. Eng. Nanyang Tech. University
More informationIntroduction to Support Vector Machines. Colin Campbell, Bristol University
Introduction to Support Vector Machines Colin Campbell, Bristol University 1 Outline of talk. Part 1. An Introduction to SVMs 1.1. SVMs for binary classification. 1.2. Soft margins and multiclass classification.
More informationInfinite Kernel Learning
Max Planck Institut für biologische Kybernetik Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics Technical Report No. TR78 Infinite Kernel Learning Peter Vincent Gehler and Sebastian Nowozin October 008
More informationMultiple Kernel Learning on the Limit Order Book
JMLR: Workshop and Conference Proceedings 11 (2010) 167 174 Workshop on Applications of Pattern Analysis Multiple Kernel Learning on the Limit Order Book Tristan Fletcher Zakria Hussain John ShaweTaylor
More informationMaximum Margin Clustering
Maximum Margin Clustering Linli Xu James Neufeld Bryce Larson Dale Schuurmans University of Waterloo University of Alberta Abstract We propose a new method for clustering based on finding maximum margin
More informationRegression Using Support Vector Machines: Basic Foundations
Regression Using Support Vector Machines: Basic Foundations Technical Report December 2004 Aly Farag and Refaat M Mohamed Computer Vision and Image Processing Laboratory Electrical and Computer Engineering
More informationDirect Convex Relaxations of Sparse SVM
Antoni B. Chan abchan@ucsd.edu Nuno Vasconcelos nuno@ece.ucsd.edu Gert R. G. Lanckriet gert@ece.ucsd.edu Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, San Diego, CA, 9037,
More informationFinancial Forecasting with Gompertz Multiple Kernel Learning
2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining Financial Forecasting with Gompertz Multiple Kernel Learning Han Qin Computer and Information Science University of Oregon Eugene, OR 97403, USA qinhan@cs.uoregon.edu
More informationSupport Vector Machine. Tutorial. (and Statistical Learning Theory)
Support Vector Machine (and Statistical Learning Theory) Tutorial Jason Weston NEC Labs America 4 Independence Way, Princeton, USA. jasonw@neclabs.com 1 Support Vector Machines: history SVMs introduced
More informationPATTERN RECOGNITION AND MACHINE LEARNING CHAPTER 4: LINEAR MODELS FOR CLASSIFICATION
PATTERN RECOGNITION AND MACHINE LEARNING CHAPTER 4: LINEAR MODELS FOR CLASSIFICATION Introduction In the previous chapter, we explored a class of regression models having particularly simple analytical
More informationLinear Threshold Units
Linear Threshold Units w x hx (... w n x n w We assume that each feature x j and each weight w j is a real number (we will relax this later) We will study three different algorithms for learning linear
More informationSemiSupervised Support Vector Machines and Application to Spam Filtering
SemiSupervised Support Vector Machines and Application to Spam Filtering Alexander Zien Empirical Inference Department, Bernhard Schölkopf Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics ECML 2006 Discovery
More informationClass #6: Nonlinear classification. ML4Bio 2012 February 17 th, 2012 Quaid Morris
Class #6: Nonlinear classification ML4Bio 2012 February 17 th, 2012 Quaid Morris 1 Module #: Title of Module 2 Review Overview Linear separability Nonlinear classification Linear Support Vector Machines
More informationComparing the Results of Support Vector Machines with Traditional Data Mining Algorithms
Comparing the Results of Support Vector Machines with Traditional Data Mining Algorithms Scott Pion and Lutz Hamel Abstract This paper presents the results of a series of analyses performed on direct mail
More informationStatistical Machine Learning
Statistical Machine Learning UoC Stats 37700, Winter quarter Lecture 4: classical linear and quadratic discriminants. 1 / 25 Linear separation For two classes in R d : simple idea: separate the classes
More informationNonlinear Optimization: Algorithms 3: Interiorpoint methods
Nonlinear Optimization: Algorithms 3: Interiorpoint methods INSEAD, Spring 2006 JeanPhilippe Vert Ecole des Mines de Paris JeanPhilippe.Vert@mines.org Nonlinear optimization c 2006 JeanPhilippe Vert,
More informationCheng Soon Ong & Christfried Webers. Canberra February June 2016
c Cheng Soon Ong & Christfried Webers Research Group and College of Engineering and Computer Science Canberra February June (Many figures from C. M. Bishop, "Pattern Recognition and ") 1of 31 c Part I
More informationLarge Scale Learning to Rank
Large Scale Learning to Rank D. Sculley Google, Inc. dsculley@google.com Abstract Pairwise learning to rank methods such as RankSVM give good performance, but suffer from the computational burden of optimizing
More informationTensor Methods for Machine Learning, Computer Vision, and Computer Graphics
Tensor Methods for Machine Learning, Computer Vision, and Computer Graphics Part I: Factorizations and Statistical Modeling/Inference Amnon Shashua School of Computer Science & Eng. The Hebrew University
More informationThe Artificial Prediction Market
The Artificial Prediction Market Adrian Barbu Department of Statistics Florida State University Joint work with Nathan Lay, Siemens Corporate Research 1 Overview Main Contributions A mathematical theory
More informationSupport Vector Machines with Clustering for Training with Very Large Datasets
Support Vector Machines with Clustering for Training with Very Large Datasets Theodoros Evgeniou Technology Management INSEAD Bd de Constance, Fontainebleau 77300, France theodoros.evgeniou@insead.fr Massimiliano
More informationSupport Vector Machine (SVM)
Support Vector Machine (SVM) CE725: Statistical Pattern Recognition Sharif University of Technology Spring 2013 Soleymani Outline Margin concept HardMargin SVM SoftMargin SVM Dual Problems of HardMargin
More informationSupport Vector Machines Explained
March 1, 2009 Support Vector Machines Explained Tristan Fletcher www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/t.fletcher/ Introduction This document has been written in an attempt to make the Support Vector Machines (SVM),
More informationLecture 2: The SVM classifier
Lecture 2: The SVM classifier C19 Machine Learning Hilary 2015 A. Zisserman Review of linear classifiers Linear separability Perceptron Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifier Wide margin Cost function
More informationConvex Optimization SVM s and Kernel Machines
Convex Optimization SVM s and Kernel Machines S.V.N. Vishy Vishwanathan vishy@axiom.anu.edu.au National ICT of Australia and Australian National University Thanks to Alex Smola and Stéphane Canu S.V.N.
More informationLecture 6: Logistic Regression
Lecture 6: CS 19410, Fall 2011 Laurent El Ghaoui EECS Department UC Berkeley September 13, 2011 Outline Outline Classification task Data : X = [x 1,..., x m]: a n m matrix of data points in R n. y { 1,
More informationSupervised Learning with Unsupervised Output Separation
Supervised Learning with Unsupervised Output Separation Nathalie Japkowicz School of Information Technology and Engineering University of Ottawa 150 Louis Pasteur, P.O. Box 450 Stn. A Ottawa, Ontario,
More informationOnline Classification on a Budget
Online Classification on a Budget Koby Crammer Computer Sci. & Eng. Hebrew University Jerusalem 91904, Israel kobics@cs.huji.ac.il Jaz Kandola Royal Holloway, University of London Egham, UK jaz@cs.rhul.ac.uk
More informationSupervised Learning (Big Data Analytics)
Supervised Learning (Big Data Analytics) Vibhav Gogate Department of Computer Science The University of Texas at Dallas Practical advice Goal of Big Data Analytics Uncover patterns in Data. Can be used
More informationDistributed Machine Learning and Big Data
Distributed Machine Learning and Big Data Sourangshu Bhattacharya Dept. of Computer Science and Engineering, IIT Kharagpur. http://cse.iitkgp.ac.in/~sourangshu/ August 21, 2015 Sourangshu Bhattacharya
More informationSupport Vector Machines
Support Vector Machines Charlie Frogner 1 MIT 2011 1 Slides mostly stolen from Ryan Rifkin (Google). Plan Regularization derivation of SVMs. Analyzing the SVM problem: optimization, duality. Geometric
More informationPredict Influencers in the Social Network
Predict Influencers in the Social Network Ruishan Liu, Yang Zhao and Liuyu Zhou Email: rliu2, yzhao2, lyzhou@stanford.edu Department of Electrical Engineering, Stanford University Abstract Given two persons
More informationLearning with Local and Global Consistency
Learning with Local and Global Consistency Dengyong Zhou, Olivier Bousquet, Thomas Navin Lal, Jason Weston, and Bernhard Schölkopf Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, 7276 Tuebingen, Germany
More informationMaximumMargin Matrix Factorization
MaximumMargin Matrix Factorization Nathan Srebro Dept. of Computer Science University of Toronto Toronto, ON, CANADA nati@cs.toronto.edu Jason D. M. Rennie Tommi S. Jaakkola Computer Science and Artificial
More informationLearning with Local and Global Consistency
Learning with Local and Global Consistency Dengyong Zhou, Olivier Bousquet, Thomas Navin Lal, Jason Weston, and Bernhard Schölkopf Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, 7276 Tuebingen, Germany
More informationAuthor Gender Identification of English Novels
Author Gender Identification of English Novels Joseph Baena and Catherine Chen December 13, 2013 1 Introduction Machine learning algorithms have long been used in studies of authorship, particularly in
More informationLABEL PROPAGATION ON GRAPHS. SEMISUPERVISED LEARNING. Changsheng Liu 10302014
LABEL PROPAGATION ON GRAPHS. SEMISUPERVISED LEARNING Changsheng Liu 10302014 Agenda Semi Supervised Learning Topics in Semi Supervised Learning Label Propagation Local and global consistency Graph
More informationDoptimal plans in observational studies
Doptimal plans in observational studies Constanze Pumplün Stefan Rüping Katharina Morik Claus Weihs October 11, 2005 Abstract This paper investigates the use of Design of Experiments in observational
More informationEmployer Health Insurance Premium Prediction Elliott Lui
Employer Health Insurance Premium Prediction Elliott Lui 1 Introduction The US spends 15.2% of its GDP on health care, more than any other country, and the cost of health insurance is rising faster than
More informationTree based ensemble models regularization by convex optimization
Tree based ensemble models regularization by convex optimization Bertrand Cornélusse, Pierre Geurts and Louis Wehenkel Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science University of Liège B4000
More informationA semisupervised Spam mail detector
A semisupervised Spam mail detector Bernhard Pfahringer Department of Computer Science, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand Abstract. This document describes a novel semisupervised approach
More informationA Simple Introduction to Support Vector Machines
A Simple Introduction to Support Vector Machines Martin Law Lecture for CSE 802 Department of Computer Science and Engineering Michigan State University Outline A brief history of SVM Largemargin linear
More informationAdapting Codes and Embeddings for Polychotomies
Adapting Codes and Embeddings for Polychotomies Gunnar Rätsch, Alexander J. Smola RSISE, CSL, Machine Learning Group The Australian National University Canberra, 2 ACT, Australia Gunnar.Raetsch, Alex.Smola
More informationOn the Path to an Ideal ROC Curve: Considering Cost Asymmetry in Learning Classifiers
On the Path to an Ideal ROC Curve: Considering Cost Asymmetry in Learning Classifiers Francis R. Bach Computer Science Division University of California Berkeley, CA 9472 fbach@cs.berkeley.edu Abstract
More informationMulticlass Classification. 9.520 Class 06, 25 Feb 2008 Ryan Rifkin
Multiclass Classification 9.520 Class 06, 25 Feb 2008 Ryan Rifkin It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. Macbeth, Act V, Scene V What Is Multiclass Classification? Each
More informationIntroduction to Machine Learning. Speaker: Harry Chao Advisor: J.J. Ding Date: 1/27/2011
Introduction to Machine Learning Speaker: Harry Chao Advisor: J.J. Ding Date: 1/27/2011 1 Outline 1. What is machine learning? 2. The basic of machine learning 3. Principles and effects of machine learning
More informationBig Data  Lecture 1 Optimization reminders
Big Data  Lecture 1 Optimization reminders S. Gadat Toulouse, Octobre 2014 Big Data  Lecture 1 Optimization reminders S. Gadat Toulouse, Octobre 2014 Schedule Introduction Major issues Examples Mathematics
More informationData Mining Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques
Ensemble learning Data Mining Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques Slides for Chapter 8 of Data Mining by I. H. Witten, E. Frank and M. A. Hall Combining multiple models Bagging The basic idea
More informationScalable Developments for Big Data Analytics in Remote Sensing
Scalable Developments for Big Data Analytics in Remote Sensing Federated Systems and Data Division Research Group High Productivity Data Processing Dr.Ing. Morris Riedel et al. Research Group Leader,
More informationMaking Sense of the Mayhem: Machine Learning and March Madness
Making Sense of the Mayhem: Machine Learning and March Madness Alex Tran and Adam Ginzberg Stanford University atran3@stanford.edu ginzberg@stanford.edu I. Introduction III. Model The goal of our research
More informationLargeScale Similarity and Distance Metric Learning
LargeScale Similarity and Distance Metric Learning Aurélien Bellet Télécom ParisTech Joint work with K. Liu, Y. Shi and F. Sha (USC), S. Clémençon and I. Colin (Télécom ParisTech) Séminaire Criteo March
More informationClassification using intersection kernel SVMs is efficient
Classification using intersection kernel SVMs is efficient Jitendra Malik UC Berkeley Joint work with Subhransu Maji and Alex Berg Fast intersection kernel SVMs and other generalizations of linear SVMs
More informationLecture 5: Conic Optimization: Overview
EE 227A: Conve Optimization and Applications January 31, 2012 Lecture 5: Conic Optimization: Overview Lecturer: Laurent El Ghaoui Reading assignment: Chapter 4 of BV. Sections 3.13.6 of WTB. 5.1 Linear
More informationCHARACTERISTICS IN FLIGHT DATA ESTIMATION WITH LOGISTIC REGRESSION AND SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINES
CHARACTERISTICS IN FLIGHT DATA ESTIMATION WITH LOGISTIC REGRESSION AND SUPPORT VECTOR MACHINES Claus Gwiggner, Ecole Polytechnique, LIX, Palaiseau, France Gert Lanckriet, University of Berkeley, EECS,
More informationmax cx s.t. Ax c where the matrix A, cost vector c and right hand side b are given and x is a vector of variables. For this example we have x
Linear Programming Linear programming refers to problems stated as maximization or minimization of a linear function subject to constraints that are linear equalities and inequalities. Although the study
More informationA Hybrid Forecasting Methodology using Feature Selection and Support Vector Regression
A Hybrid Forecasting Methodology using Feature Selection and Support Vector Regression José Guajardo, Jaime Miranda, and Richard Weber, Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Chile Abstract
More informationCSCI567 Machine Learning (Fall 2014)
CSCI567 Machine Learning (Fall 2014) Drs. Sha & Liu {feisha,yanliu.cs}@usc.edu September 22, 2014 Drs. Sha & Liu ({feisha,yanliu.cs}@usc.edu) CSCI567 Machine Learning (Fall 2014) September 22, 2014 1 /
More informationMachine learning challenges for big data
Machine learning challenges for big data Francis Bach SIERRA Projectteam, INRIA  Ecole Normale Supérieure Joint work with R. Jenatton, J. Mairal, G. Obozinski, N. Le Roux, M. Schmidt  December 2012
More informationTowards Ultrahigh Dimensional Feature Selection for Big Data
Journal of Machine Learning Research 15 (2014) 13711429 Submitted 5/12; Revised 1/14; Published 4/14 Towards Ultrahigh Dimensional Feature Selection for Big Data Mingkui Tan School of Computer Engineering
More informationIntroduction to Convex Optimization for Machine Learning
Introduction to Convex Optimization for Machine Learning John Duchi University of California, Berkeley Practical Machine Learning, Fall 2009 Duchi (UC Berkeley) Convex Optimization for Machine Learning
More informationIFT3395/6390. Machine Learning from linear regression to Neural Networks. Machine Learning. Training Set. t (3.5, 2,..., 127, 0,...
IFT3395/6390 Historical perspective: back to 1957 (Prof. Pascal Vincent) (Rosenblatt, Perceptron ) Machine Learning from linear regression to Neural Networks Computer Science Artificial Intelligence Symbolic
More informationTowards better accuracy for Spam predictions
Towards better accuracy for Spam predictions Chengyan Zhao Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2E4 czhao@cs.toronto.edu Abstract Spam identification is crucial
More informationModelling, Extraction and Description of Intrinsic Cues of High Resolution Satellite Images: Independent Component Analysis based approaches
Modelling, Extraction and Description of Intrinsic Cues of High Resolution Satellite Images: Independent Component Analysis based approaches PhD Thesis by Payam Birjandi Director: Prof. Mihai Datcu Problematic
More informationSeveral Views of Support Vector Machines
Several Views of Support Vector Machines Ryan M. Rifkin Honda Research Institute USA, Inc. Human Intention Understanding Group 2007 Tikhonov Regularization We are considering algorithms of the form min
More informationC19 Machine Learning
C9 Machine Learning 8 Lectures Hilary Term 25 2 Tutorial Sheets A. Zisserman Overview: Supervised classification perceptron, support vector machine, loss functions, kernels, random forests, neural networks
More informationAdaptive Online Gradient Descent
Adaptive Online Gradient Descent Peter L Bartlett Division of Computer Science Department of Statistics UC Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94709 bartlett@csberkeleyedu Elad Hazan IBM Almaden Research Center 650
More informationA Feature Selection Methodology for Steganalysis
A Feature Selection Methodology for Steganalysis Yoan Miche 1, Benoit Roue 2, Amaury Lendasse 1, Patrick Bas 12 1 Laboratory of Computer and Information Science Helsinki University of Technology P.O. Box
More informationDrug Store Sales Prediction
Drug Store Sales Prediction Chenghao Wang, Yang Li Abstract  In this paper we tried to apply machine learning algorithm into a real world problem drug store sales forecasting. Given store information,
More informationTransformbased Domain Adaptation for Big Data
Transformbased Domain Adaptation for Big Data Erik Rodner University of Jena Judy Hoffman Jeff Donahue Trevor Darrell Kate Saenko UMass Lowell Abstract Images seen during test time are often not from
More informationSTA 4273H: Statistical Machine Learning
STA 4273H: Statistical Machine Learning Russ Salakhutdinov Department of Statistics! rsalakhu@utstat.toronto.edu! http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~rsalakhu/ Lecture 6 Three Approaches to Classification Construct
More informationFeature Selection using Integer and Binary coded Genetic Algorithm to improve the performance of SVM Classifier
Feature Selection using Integer and Binary coded Genetic Algorithm to improve the performance of SVM Classifier D.Nithya a, *, V.Suganya b,1, R.Saranya Irudaya Mary c,1 Abstract  This paper presents,
More informationOptimization for Machine Learning
Optimization for Machine Learning Lecture 4: SMOMKL S.V. N. (vishy) Vishwanathan Purdue University vishy@purdue.edu July 11, 2012 S.V. N. Vishwanathan (Purdue University) Optimization for Machine Learning
More informationGaussian Processes in Machine Learning
Gaussian Processes in Machine Learning Carl Edward Rasmussen Max Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, 72076 Tübingen, Germany carl@tuebingen.mpg.de WWW home page: http://www.tuebingen.mpg.de/ carl
More informationA User s Guide to Support Vector Machines
A User s Guide to Support Vector Machines Asa BenHur Department of Computer Science Colorado State University Jason Weston NEC Labs America Princeton, NJ 08540 USA Abstract The Support Vector Machine
More informationAutomatic Web Page Classification
Automatic Web Page Classification Yasser Ganjisaffar 84802416 yganjisa@uci.edu 1 Introduction To facilitate user browsing of Web, some websites such as Yahoo! (http://dir.yahoo.com) and Open Directory
More informationOn Multifont Character Classification in Telugu
On Multifont Character Classification in Telugu Venkat Rasagna, K. J. Jinesh, and C. V. Jawahar International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad 500032, INDIA. Abstract. A major requirement
More informationArtificial Neural Networks and Support Vector Machines. CS 486/686: Introduction to Artificial Intelligence
Artificial Neural Networks and Support Vector Machines CS 486/686: Introduction to Artificial Intelligence 1 Outline What is a Neural Network?  Perceptron learners  Multilayer networks What is a Support
More informationlargescale machine learning revisited Léon Bottou Microsoft Research (NYC)
largescale machine learning revisited Léon Bottou Microsoft Research (NYC) 1 three frequent ideas in machine learning. independent and identically distributed data This experimental paradigm has driven
More informationSUPPORT VECTOR MACHINE (SVM) is the optimal
130 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NEURAL NETWORKS, VOL. 19, NO. 1, JANUARY 2008 Multiclass Posterior Probability Support Vector Machines Mehmet Gönen, Ayşe Gönül Tanuğur, and Ethem Alpaydın, Senior Member, IEEE
More information(Quasi)Newton methods
(Quasi)Newton methods 1 Introduction 1.1 Newton method Newton method is a method to find the zeros of a differentiable nonlinear function g, x such that g(x) = 0, where g : R n R n. Given a starting
More informationLogistic Regression. Jia Li. Department of Statistics The Pennsylvania State University. Logistic Regression
Logistic Regression Department of Statistics The Pennsylvania State University Email: jiali@stat.psu.edu Logistic Regression Preserve linear classification boundaries. By the Bayes rule: Ĝ(x) = arg max
More informationMusical Pitch Identification
Musical Pitch Identification Manoj Deshpande Introduction Musical pitch identification is the fundamental problem that serves as a building block for many music applications such as music transcription,
More informationEnhanced Protein Fold Recognition through a Novel Data Integration Approach
Enhanced Protein Fold Recognition through a Novel Data Integration Approach Yiming Ying 1, Kaizhu Huang 2 and Colin Campbell 1 1 Department of Engineering Mathematics, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8
More informationDuality in General Programs. Ryan Tibshirani Convex Optimization 10725/36725
Duality in General Programs Ryan Tibshirani Convex Optimization 10725/36725 1 Last time: duality in linear programs Given c R n, A R m n, b R m, G R r n, h R r : min x R n c T x max u R m, v R r b T
More informationFactorization Machines
Factorization Machines Steffen Rendle Department of Reasoning for Intelligence The Institute of Scientific and Industrial Research Osaka University, Japan rendle@ar.sanken.osakau.ac.jp Abstract In this
More informationData Mining  Evaluation of Classifiers
Data Mining  Evaluation of Classifiers Lecturer: JERZY STEFANOWSKI Institute of Computing Sciences Poznan University of Technology Poznan, Poland Lecture 4 SE Master Course 2008/2009 revised for 2010
More informationEnsemble Methods. Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 2 (VU) (707.004) Roman Kern. KTI, TU Graz 20150305
Ensemble Methods Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 2 (VU) (707004) Roman Kern KTI, TU Graz 20150305 Roman Kern (KTI, TU Graz) Ensemble Methods 20150305 1 / 38 Outline 1 Introduction 2 Classification
More informationTable 1: Summary of the settings and parameters employed by the additive PA algorithm for classification, regression, and uniclass.
Online PassiveAggressive Algorithms Koby Crammer Ofer Dekel Shai ShalevShwartz Yoram Singer School of Computer Science & Engineering The Hebrew University, Jerusalem 91904, Israel {kobics,oferd,shais,singer}@cs.huji.ac.il
More informationIntroduction to Online Learning Theory
Introduction to Online Learning Theory Wojciech Kot lowski Institute of Computing Science, Poznań University of Technology IDSS, 04.06.2013 1 / 53 Outline 1 Example: Online (Stochastic) Gradient Descent
More informationLecture 3: Linear methods for classification
Lecture 3: Linear methods for classification Rafael A. Irizarry and Hector Corrada Bravo February, 2010 Today we describe four specific algorithms useful for classification problems: linear regression,
More informationMachine Learning in FX Carry Basket Prediction
Machine Learning in FX Carry Basket Prediction Tristan Fletcher, Fabian Redpath and Joe D Alessandro Abstract Artificial Neural Networks ANN), Support Vector Machines SVM) and Relevance Vector Machines
More informationSearch Taxonomy. Web Search. Search Engine Optimization. Information Retrieval
Information Retrieval INFO 4300 / CS 4300! Retrieval models Older models» Boolean retrieval» Vector Space model Probabilistic Models» BM25» Language models Web search» Learning to Rank Search Taxonomy!
More informationCLASSIFICATION OF TRADING STRATEGIES IN ADAPTIVE MARKETS
M A C H I N E L E A R N I N G P R O J E C T F I N A L R E P O R T F A L L 2 7 C S 6 8 9 CLASSIFICATION OF TRADING STRATEGIES IN ADAPTIVE MARKETS MARK GRUMAN MANJUNATH NARAYANA Abstract In the CAT Tournament,
More informationAn Introduction to Machine Learning
An Introduction to Machine Learning L5: Novelty Detection and Regression Alexander J. Smola Statistical Machine Learning Program Canberra, ACT 0200 Australia Alex.Smola@nicta.com.au Tata Institute, Pune,
More informationNeural Networks. CAP5610 Machine Learning Instructor: GuoJun Qi
Neural Networks CAP5610 Machine Learning Instructor: GuoJun Qi Recap: linear classifier Logistic regression Maximizing the posterior distribution of class Y conditional on the input vector X Support vector
More informationA fast multiclass SVM learning method for huge databases
www.ijcsi.org 544 A fast multiclass SVM learning method for huge databases Djeffal Abdelhamid 1, Babahenini Mohamed Chaouki 2 and TalebAhmed Abdelmalik 3 1,2 Computer science department, LESIA Laboratory,
More informationLargeScale Machine Learning with Stochastic Gradient Descent
LargeScale Machine Learning with Stochastic Gradient Descent Léon Bottou NEC Labs America, Princeton NJ 08542, USA leon@bottou.org Abstract. During the last decade, the data sizes have grown faster than
More informationEarly defect identification of semiconductor processes using machine learning
STANFORD UNIVERISTY MACHINE LEARNING CS229 Early defect identification of semiconductor processes using machine learning Friday, December 16, 2011 Authors: Saul ROSA Anton VLADIMIROV Professor: Dr. Andrew
More informationMassive Data Classification via Unconstrained Support Vector Machines
Massive Data Classification via Unconstrained Support Vector Machines Olvi L. Mangasarian and Michael E. Thompson Computer Sciences Department University of Wisconsin 1210 West Dayton Street Madison, WI
More information